Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 90
October 2006
Üner v. the Netherlands [GC] - 46410/99
Judgment 18.10.2006 [GC]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Respect for private life
Withdrawal of residence permit and imposition of ten-year exclusion order, resulting in the applicant’s separation from his partner and two children: no violation
Facts: The applicant, a Turkish national, came to the Netherlands at the age of 12 with his mother and two brothers to join his father. In 1988 he obtained a permanent residence permit. In 1991 he started living with a Netherlands national and they had a son. The applicant moved out in 1992, but remained in close contact with both his partner and son. In 1994 the applicant was convicted of manslaughter and assault and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. He had already been convicted for violent offences and for a breach of the peace. A further son was born to him in 1996. His partner and sons visited him in prison at least once a week. Both his sons have Netherlands nationality and have been recognised by him. Neither his partner nor his children speak Turkish. In 1997 the Deputy Minister of Justice withdrew the applicant’s permanent residence permit and imposed a ten-year exclusion order on him in view of his conviction in 1994. He was deported to Turkey in 1998.
Law: In its Chamber judgment the Court had held, by six votes to one, that there had been no violation of Article 8. The Grand Chamber (hereinafter “the Court”) did not doubt that the applicant had strong ties with the Netherlands. That said, the Court could not overlook the fact that the applicant had lived with his partner and first-born son for a relatively short period only and that he had never lived together with his second son. Moreover, the Court was not prepared to accept that he had spent so little time in Turkey that, at the time when he was returned to that country, he no longer had any social or cultural (including linguistic) ties with Turkish society. The offences of manslaughter and assault were of a very serious nature and given his previous convictions, he might be said to have displayed criminal propensities. When the exclusion order became final, the applicant’s children had been very young still – six and one-and-a-half years old respectively – and therefore of an adaptable age. Given that they had Dutch nationality, they would – if they followed their father to Turkey – be able to return to the Netherlands regularly to visit other family members living there. In the particular circumstances of the case, the family’s interests were outweighed by other considerations. Given the nature and the seriousness of the applicant’s offences and bearing in mind that the exclusion order was limited to ten years, the Court could not find that the authorities had assigned too much weight to the State’s own interests when deciding to impose that measure. Hence a fair balance had been struck in that the applicant’s expulsion and exclusion from the Netherlands had been proportionate to the aims pursued and therefore necessary in a democratic society.
Conclusion: no violation (14 votes to three).
For further details, see Press Release no. 608.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy